Quality of evidence to compare outcomes of open and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy

Transition from open to robotically assisted approach on radical prostatectomies in Iceland. A nationwide, population-based study

OBJECTIVES

In January 2015, radical prostatectomies (RPs) in Iceland changed almost entirely from being performed as open (ORP) to robotically assisted (RARP). This study assesses early surgical and short-term oncological outcome after ORP and RARP and evaluates the safety of transition between the two surgical techniques.

METHODS

The study population involved 160/163 (98%) of all radical prostatectomies performed in Iceland between January 2013 and April 2016. Data on patients was collected retrospectively from medical records. Early surgical and short-term oncological outcomes were compared between the two surgical techniques.

RESULTS

The ORP and RARP cohorts were comparable with respect to all clinical and pathological variables, except for median prostate volume, which was 45 mL in the ORP cohort and 37 mL in the RARP cohort (p = 0.03). Intraoperative blood loss was higher, hospital stay longer, catheterization time longer, and risk of complications within 30 days of surgery higher after ORP than RARP (p < 0.01). The operative time, positive surgical margin rate and recurrence free survival, within two years, was comparable between the two surgical techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

The transition from ORP to RARP in Iceland was safe and resulted in improved early surgical outcome. However, no conclusion can be drawn from this study regarding oncological outcome, due to short follow up and a small sample size.

Robotic radical prostatectomy after aborted prostatectomy: still feasible? The experience from a tertiary care center

To describe the surgical management of patients who had radical prostatectomy previously attempted but aborted due to diverse causes. Patients who underwent an "aborted prostatectomy" were extracted from the institutional prostatectomy database. A description of the tailored robotic approach was reported for each case. Tips and tricks for the accomplishment of robotic prostatectomy after aborted prostatectomy were reported. Six clinical cases were analyzed. Three patients had aborted prostatectomy due to complicated dissection hindered by pelvic mesh and bowel adhesions; one prostatectomy was aborted due to anesthesiology/respiratory matters; one for narrow pelvis; one due to abnormal pelvic vascular anatomy. All patients successfully underwent robotic prostatectomy at our institution. In five patients, standard transperitoneal robotic approach was performed. In one patient, robotic transperineal approach was mandatory. Median operative time was 282 min (86-460). Median estimated blood loss was 325 mL (50-1000). Two patients had positive surgical margins. One patient was found with nodal metastasis at final pathology. Neither perioperative nor postoperative complications were reported. At last follow-up, PSA was undetectable in 5/6 patients. Even after previous aborted prostatectomy, robot-assisted prostatectomy is feasible, with acceptable results. The case-by-case tailoring of the technique is the key for a successful intervention.

Retropubic, Laparoscopic, and Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Comparative Analysis of the Surgical Outcomes in a Single Regional Center

Background

To compare the surgical outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) performed via 3 different approaches: retropubic (RRP), laparoscopic-assisted (LRP), and robot-assisted (RARP), in a single non-academic regional center by a single surgeon.

Materials and Methods

The data of patients undergoing RP from 2005 to 2014 were reviewed. The standard approach changed through the years: RRP (n = 380, years 2005 to 2008), LRP (n = 240, years 2009 to 2011), and RARP (n = 262, years 2012 to 2014). Our analysis included the last consecutive 100 RP for each surgical technique by a single surgeon. A logistic regression model adjusted for pre-and postoperative variables was done to evaluate whether transfusion, conversion, and post-operative complication rates were influenced by the approach.

Results

RARP was associated with significantly lower blood loss (400 vs. 600 and 600 ml, respectively), transfusion (6 vs. 21 and 21%, respectively), and shorter hospital stay (6 vs. 7 and 8 days, respectively), compared to LRP and RRP, and a lower conversion rate (1 vs. 12%) compared to LRP. Multivariate analysis adjusted for confounders confirmed that the risk of transfusion and conversion was significantly lower in the RARP group compared to the LRP and RRP groups. The RARP group was also associated with a significantly lower risk of complications compared to the RRP group and with a trend in favor of the RARP group compared to the LRP group. The 1-year continence rate was significantly higher in the RARP group compared to the RRP and LRP groups (80 vs. 72 and 68%, respectively).

Conclusion

The surgical approach affected the operative outcomes in a regional setting. The advantages of RARP over RRP (complications, transfusion, conversion, hospital stay, 1-year continence) were over LRP as well, with the only exception being complications.

Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy vs. Open Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Open retropubic radical prostatectomy (ORP) remains the "gold standard" for surgical treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa). Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a robotic surgery used worldwide. The aim of this study is to collect the data available in the literature on RARP and ORP, and further evaluate the overall safety and efficacy of RARP vs. ORP for the treatment of clinically localized PCa. A literature search was performed using electronic databases between January 2009 and October 2013. Clinical data such as operation duration, transfusion rate, positive surgical margins (PSM), nerve sparing, 3- and 12-month urinary continence, and potency were pooled to carry out meta-analysis. Six studies were enrolled for this meta-analysis. The operation duration of RARP group was longer than that of ORP group (weighted mean difference = 64.84). There was no statistically significant difference in the transfusion rate, PSM rate, and between RARP and ORP (transfusion rate, OR = 0.30; PSM rate, OR = 0.94). No significant difference was seen in 3- and 12-month urinary continence recovery (3 months, OR = 1.32; 12 months, OR = 1.30). There was a statistically significant difference in potency between the 3- and 12-month groups (3 months, OR = 2.80; 12 months, OR = 1.70). RARP is a safe and feasible surgical technique for the treatment of clinically localized PCa owing to the advantages of fewer perioperative complications and quicker patency recovery.

Histological evaluation of nerve sparing technique in robotic assisted radical prostatectomy

Introduction:

The objective of this study is to compare intrafascial nerve-sparing (NS), interfascial NS and non-NS prostatecomy specimens to assess the feasibility of NS technique in Robot-assisted radical prostatectomies (RARP).

Materials and Methods:

The records of the first 43 consecutive patients (86 prostatic sides (lobe) who underwent NS RARP (6 intrafascial NS, 46 interfacial NS, 34 non-NS) were reviewed and histopathological examinations were performed. The presence and distribution of periprostatic neurovascular structures were histologically evaluated using mid-gland section of each prostate lobe in the prostatectomy specimen and it was immunostained with the S-100 antibody for quantitative analysis of nerves.

Results:

The average number of nerve fibers per prostatic half was 37.2 ± 20.6. The number of resected peri-prostatic nerves counted was 13.7 ± 13.5, 30.5 ± 15.0 and 50.4 ± 20.4 in intrafascial NS, interfascial NS and non-NS specimens, respectively. The difference in the number of nerve bundle counts in the three groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Patients with urinary continence at 6 months after surgery had significantly less number of nerve fibers resected with the prostate than the incontinence group (P = 0.013) and the number of nerve fibers resected in the potent group were lower than in the impotent group but did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.057).

Conclusions:

Our study showed that NS RARP could be performed according to surgeons’ intention (intrafascial, interfascial or non-NS) and urinary continence significantly correlated to the number of nerve fibers resected with the prostate.

Positioning-related complications of minimally invasive radical prostatectomies

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Because of recent advances in minimally invasive surgical techniques, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has become the primary treatment option in prostate cancer. RARP, however, necessitates patients to be placed in a steep Trendelenberg position, which presents multiple opportunities for complications relating to the positioning of the patient. Our study aims to study the prevalence and demographic predictors of these positioning complications and assess their impacts on length of stay (LOS) and total cost.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We included patients who underwent RP from 2008 to 2009 using data extracted from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. Positioning complications (eye, nerve, compartment syndrome/rhabdomyolysis) were identified using patient-level diagnosis and procedural International Classification of Disease, 9th edition, Clinical Modification codes. Logistic regression models assessed relationships between demographic factors and occurrence of complications and the effects of them on prolonged LOS and total inpatient cost.

RESULTS

Positioning complications occurred in 0.4% of cases with eye complications contributing the most to this frequency. Laparoscopic RP procedure (odds ratio [OR]=2.88, P<0.01) and comorbidities (OR=2.34, P<0.01) were highly associated with increased odds of positioning complication occurrence, whereas RARP procedures (OR=0.93, P>0.4) were not associated with positioning complications. Having positioning complications increased a patient's odds of having increased inpatient costs and extended LOS by almost 400% and 300%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The steep Trendelenberg position used in RARP was not shown to be associated with patient positioning-related complications in this sample. The occurrence of positioning-related complications, however, places huge burdens on total inpatient costs and LOS.

Benchmarks for operative outcomes of robotic and open radical prostatectomy: results from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) has become increasingly common; however, there have been no nationwide, population-based, non-claims-based studies to evaluate differences in outcomes between RALP and open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP).

OBJECTIVE

To determine surgical, oncologic, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes following RALP and RRP in a nationwide cohort.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We identified 903 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2000 and 2010 who underwent radical prostatectomy using RALP (n=282) or RRP (n=621) as primary treatment.

INTERVENTION

Radical prostatectomy.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

We compared patients undergoing RALP or RRP across a range of perioperative, oncologic, and HRQOL outcomes.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Use of RALP increased during the study period, constituting 85.2% of study subjects in 2009, up from 4.5% in 2003. Patients undergoing RALP compared to RRP were less likely to have a lymph node dissection (51.5% vs 85.4%; p<0.0001), had less blood loss (207.4 ml vs 852.3 ml; p<0.0001), were less likely to receive blood transfusions (4.3% vs 30.3%; p<0.0001), and had shorter hospital stays (1.8 d vs 2.9 d; p<0.0001). Surgical, oncologic, and HRQOL outcomes did not differ significantly among the groups. In multivariate logistic regression models, there were no significant differences in 3- or 5-yr recurrence-free survival comparing RALP versus RRP (hazard ratios: 0.98 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.46-2.08] and 0.75 [95% CI, 0.18-3.11], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In a nationwide cohort of patients undergoing surgical treatment for prostate cancer, RALP was associated with shorter hospital stay, and lower blood loss and transfusion rates than RRP. Surgical oncologic and HRQOL outcomes were similar between groups.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We studied men throughout the United States with prostate cancer who underwent surgical removal of the prostate. We found that robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy resulted in shorter hospital stay, less blood loss, and fewer blood transfusions than radical retropubic prostatectomy. There were no differences in cancer control or health-related quality of life.

Impact of prostate volume on oncological and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy: robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open retropubic

Purpose

We compared the impact of prostate volume on oncological and functional outcomes 2 years after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) and open radical retropubic prostatectomy (ORP).

Materials and Methods

Between 2003 and 2010, 253 consecutive patients who had undergone prostatectomy by a single surgeon were serially followed over 2 years postoperatively. RALP was performed on 77 patients and ORP on 176. The patients were divided into two subgroups according to prostate volume as measured by transrectal ultrasound: less than 40 g and 40 g or larger. Recoveries of potency and continence were checked serially by interview 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 24 months postoperatively.

Results

RALP was associated with less blood loss (ORP vs. RALP: 910 mL vs. 640 mL, p<0.001) but a longer operation time (150 minutes vs. 220 minutes, p<0.001) than was ORP. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups for oncological outcomes, such as positive surgical margin (40% vs. 39%, p=0.911) or biochemical recurrence (12% vs. 7%, p=0.155). The overall functional outcomes showed no statistically significant differences at 2 years of follow-up (continence: 97% vs. 94%, p=0.103; potency: 51% vs. 56%, p=0.614). In the results of an inter-subgroup analysis, potency recovery was more rapid in patients who underwent RALP in a small-volume prostate than in those who underwent ORP in a small-volume prostate (3 months: 24% vs. 0%, p=0.005; 6 months: 36% vs. 10%, p=0.024). However, patients who underwent RALP in a large-volume prostate were less likely to recover continence than were patients who underwent ORP in a large-volume prostate (97% vs. 88%, p=0.025).

Conclusions

Patients can be expected to recover erectile function more quickly after RALP than after ORP, especially in cases of a small prostate volume.

Robotic radical prostatectomy: The new gold standard

Objectives

Open radical prostatectomy (RP) has been the standard and primary treatment for focal prostate cancer. However, in recent years this view has changed, as robot-assisted laparoscopic RP has gained acceptance among urologists. In this review we evaluate the importance and place of robotics in laparoscopic urological surgery, discussing several techniques that are currently being used and potentially new techniques that might be used in the future.

Methods

We systematically reviewed papers published between 1998 and 2011 using the keywords ‘robotic prostatectomy’ ‘gold standard’ and the Medline database. In addition, after selecting relevant reports we searched ‘related citations’ of the documents to find further supporting published papers.

Results

In all, 50 original papers were identified using the search criteria; we also found 28 through ‘related citations’ browsing. Papers were selected according to their relevance to the current topic (i.e. RP, original articles) and incorporated into this review. These papers were used for their information on the advantages of using robotics, as well as innovative ideas being used in the field of robotic urological surgery.

Conclusion

Almost a decade after the first robotic RP many reports show the benefits and advantages of incorporating robotics into urological surgery. Robotic surgery decreases the learning curve necessary for surgeons when compared with laparoscopic techniques. In addition, patients prefer robotics, as the procedure is less invasive, diminishes the duration of hospitalisation and speeds the return to function.